View Full Version : Artists
When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911, and
was not recovered for two years, more people turned up to stare at the empty
space than had ever come to see the painting.
In 1961 Henri Matisse's painting Le Bateau was hung upside down at new yorks
museum of modern art for 46 days before any one noticed.
A painter who has the feel for breasts and buttocks is saved (renoir) :devil:
It takes 570 gallons of paint to cover the White house.
arildno
Aug18-05, 04:33 AM
In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.
In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.
Quite true, i think Renoir had the right idea.
gurkhawarhorse
Aug18-05, 06:47 AM
i even heard that vinci's monalisa was copied and there were 12 such paintings and noone knows where is the real one. the one in the musem could be a faulty one!!!
i even heard that vinci's monalisa was copied and there were 12 such paintings and noone knows where is the real one. the one in the musem could be a faulty one!!!
:surprised Yeah! And the pentagon's actually invisible and on an island in the carribean. The one in washington is fake!! Infact, there are 12 invisible ones in the carribean and no one knows which one it is either! :eek:
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 03:10 PM
Michelangelo's family had pretentions to nobility, and it was for this reason that his father beat the boy when he anounced he wanted to become an artist. At the time artists were considered tradesmen like cobblers, or coopers. This was so ungentlemanly a thing for one of his sons to aspire to when he himself was trying to upgrade the family image that Ludovico Buonarroti felt it was just good parenting to try and beat the idea out of his son, Michelangelo.
mattmns
Aug18-05, 03:29 PM
My favorite artist is Jan Van Eyck, his paintings are amazing.
In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.
In my opinion, art went downhill when artists came to the conclusion that art needs to be pleasurable to the senses.
My favorite artist is Jan Van Eyck, his paintings are amazing.
Ah, the Flemish masters. Brueghel the Elder happens to be my favorite.
What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
and no one notices, how can it have meaning?
What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
and no one notices, how can it have meaning?
Quite a bit. Modern art is wonderful. I fully recommend studying it.
Just because it's not a pretty oil painting of a basketful of puppies with an obvious top and a bottom doesn't mean it can't have a meaning.
arildno
Aug18-05, 03:53 PM
In my opinion, art went downhill when artists came to the conclusion that art needs to be pleasurable to the senses.
Well, that's where you are wrong.
Well, that's where you are wrong.
No, your opinion is wrong.
:tongue:
arildno
Aug18-05, 04:29 PM
No, your opinion is wrong.
:tongue:
It merely shows how little you know about real art.
You think, I guess, like the idiot highbrows that requirements of appeal to the senses is constraining for artistic expression?
It is not.
It is liberating.
It merely shows how little you know about real art.
You think, I guess, like the idiot highbrows that requirements of appeal to the senses is constraining for artistic expression?
It is not.
It is liberating.
Requirements for artistic expression are by definition constraints on artistic expression. :confused:
Other than being a regular customer of Thomas Kinkade art boutiques, what do you know about real art?
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 04:34 PM
My favorite artist is Jan Van Eyck, his paintings are amazing.
I have a book of Flemish Painters wth two of his paintings, reproduced at fairly large scale fo a book.
The one of the wedding couple is like some early surreal work: the strange, pale, spindly groom wears an enormous mad hatter looking hat, and the couple is visible from the rear in a hemispherical mirror hanging on the wall behind them, suggestive of the later works of M.C. Escher. The rigidity of their formal pose, which partly predicts the flavor of American Gothic is, apparently, adopted by the little dog at their feet, who seems to be holding himself still to have his portrait painted, while actually wanting to run around and bark. The detail everywhere is meticulous.
arildno
Aug18-05, 04:36 PM
Requirements for artistic expression are by definition constraints on artistic expression. :confused:
Yes, in the same manner as disciplining your mind to think through issues logically is "constraining" for scientific research.
Yes, in the same manner as disciplining your mind is "constraining" for scientific research.
Art is intrinsically different than scientific research.
Quite a bit. Modern art is wonderful. I fully recommend studying it.
Just because it's not a pretty oil painting of a basketful of puppies with an obvious top and a bottom doesn't mean it can't have a meaning.
Or even some non human did it, a chimp elephant whatever, or even a pile of bricks, utter tosh, modern art is not.
arildno
Aug18-05, 04:38 PM
Art is intrinsically different than scientific research.
"Intrinsical". That's a fancy word.
Or even some non human did it, a chimp elephant whatever, or even a pile of bricks, utter tosh, modern art is not.
But chimps can't produce modern art. Or elephants. Or toddlers. Any more than they can paint like flemish masters.
loseyourname
Aug18-05, 04:40 PM
Other than being a regular customer of Thomas Kinkade art boutiques, what do you know about real art?
Art can be beautiful without being unsophisticated. Take Dido and Aeneas:
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/images/m/00067201.jpg
arildno
Aug18-05, 04:40 PM
But chimps can't produce modern art. Or elephants. Or toddlers. Any more than they can paint like flemish masters.
From what I know, there are modern "artists" who smear fecal matter onto a white board, and pronounces this to be "art".
A chimp could do likewise; at least the smearing bit.
Art can be beautiful without being unsophisticated. Take Dido and Aeneas:
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/images/m/00067201.jpg
And art can be art without being beautiful.
http://college-de-vevey.vd.ch/auteur/Picasso/guernica-init.jpg
arildno
Aug18-05, 04:43 PM
Look at this brilliant, haunting self-portait Robert Mapplethorpe made:
http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_97A_3.html
That's art.
loseyourname
Aug18-05, 04:44 PM
You think Guernica isn't beautiful? Use the [ img ] tags.
Look at this brilliant, haunting self-portait Robert Mapplethorpe made:
http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_97A_3.html
That's art.
I agree. Although there's a lot of Mapplethorpe's work that isn't considered "pleasurable to the senses."
Although that's a ridiculous vague term.
But chimps can't produce modern art. Or elephants. Or toddlers. Any more than they can paint like flemish masters.
So when does it become art, when some one famous puts brush to canvas?
and when is it a mindless mess, i agree some modern art has merrit, but the
rest is taking the public for a ride.
You think Guernica isn't beautiful? Use the [ img ] tags.
No, I think it's ugly as hell. Exactly how it was meant to be.
arildno
Aug18-05, 04:47 PM
I agree. Although there's a lot of Mapplethorpe's work that isn't considered "pleasurable to the senses."
That's in the eye of the beholder..:wink:
Although that's a ridiculous vague term.
No more vague than that art is to convey some "deep meaning".
So when does it become art, when some one famous puts brush to canvas?
and when is it a mindless mess, i agree some modern art has merrit, but the
rest is taking the public for a ride.
It's kind of like pornography. You know it when you see it. An abstract painting is art whether a broke student does it in his studio apartment/studio. Being famous only effects how much you can sell it for.
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 04:56 PM
Ah, the Flemish masters. Brueghel the Elder happens to be my favorite.
My book has his The Parable of the Blind reproduced in it. This looks to be "The Blind Leading The Blind", as opposed to the blind men/elephant story.
It is an extremely well executed, dark souled painting. The colors and modeling of form stand out as particularly individual, within the general Flemish style. He is a better draughtsman than Bosch, who also liked this kind of subject matter, but there is still an interesting, naive kind of stiffness to the figures that tells us the transition from the medieval to the renaissance isn't complete yet. The blind men and their situation is grotesque, and the lesson is heavy handed: one suspects this painting had a specific target.
arildno
Aug18-05, 04:57 PM
TRCSF:
To just give you one type of so-called art that I remain unwilling to call by that name:
Works that are so replete with references to other works, and essentially is completely incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't gone to art school and learnt about those references earlier.
A work of art, IMO, should be accessible to ANYONE, it should have the power to provide any person, no matter his educational background, with aesthetic experiences.
Whether those aesthetic experiences are those the artist intended, or not, is irrelevant.
The Mapplethorpe self-portrait is, IMO, accessible in this manner:
It has an arresting, disturbing look to it, but how the viewer proceeds from there is wholly individual.
In particular, the image retains full aesthetic power even for someone who doesn't know that Mapplethorpe was terminally ill from his AIDS condition at the time the photograph was made.
TRCSF:
To just give you one type of so-called art that I remain unwilling to call by that name:
Works that are so replete with references to other works, and essentially is completely incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't gone to art school and learnt about those references earlier.
A work of art, IMO, should be accessible to ANYONE, it should have the power to provide any person, no matter his educational background, with aesthetic experiences.
Whether those aesthetic experiences are those the artist intended, or not, is irrelevant.
Alright, I thought by saying "art has to be pleasurably to the sense" you were saying something akin to "movies have to have happy endings."
I'm still not getting what you mean by "references." All art in a sense "refers" to work that came before it.
I disagree that it should appeal to everybody. There have always been philistines who cannot appreciate art. There always will be.
loseyourname
Aug18-05, 05:02 PM
No, I think it's ugly as hell. Exactly how it was meant to be.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on that. This is an ugly image of war:
http://kypros.org/Occupied_Cyprus/cyprus1974/images/invasion/napalm_victim_400_bg.jpg
hypatia
Aug18-05, 05:07 PM
edited..what I had to say shouldnt be posted under something that disturbing
arildno
Aug18-05, 05:07 PM
Alright, I thought by saying "art has to be pleasurably to the sense" you were saying something akin to "movies have to have happy endings."
I'm still not getting what you mean by "references." All art in a sense "refers" to work that came before it.
I disagree that it should appeal to everybody. There have always been philistines who cannot appreciate art. There always will be.
Okay, "practically" anyone then..:wink:
Did you see my edit, BTW?
It answers a bit on one type of references I was talking about (in this case, that knowledge of biographical details of an artist should not be essential for an appreciation of the artwork).
Another type of reference will be if the artwork really is only a commentary on two different traditions in art, say two schools, and unless you know about the two schools, you wouldn't get anything out of the artwork.
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 05:09 PM
What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
and no one notices, how can it have meaning?
A good, balanced painting should work even if it's upside down, including classical paintings. Witness: the Sistine Chapel. There is nowhere you can stand where all the figures are right side up, yet the ones that are upside down from your inertial frame, don't unbalance or disturb the ceiling as a whole. You ought to be able to hang any painting upside down and, regarding it as an abstract, find it is all balanced in terms of line, form, rhythm and color.
A good abstract painting, being non-figurative, doesn't lose it's integrity for looking as good upside down as right side up, rather, this proves it's integrity. Proves it, that is, if it actually does work in the accepted "right-side-up" position. A different abstract work will look equally bad no matter which way you hang it.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on that. This is an ugly image of war:
http://kypros.org/Occupied_Cyprus/cyprus1974/images/invasion/napalm_victim_400_bg.jpg
Yes, that is also an ugly image of war and was exactly the sort of thing Picasso was conveying.
Okay, "practically" anyone then..:wink:
Did you see my edit, BTW?
It answers a bit on one type of references I was talking about (in this case, that knowledge of biographical details of an artist should not be essential for an appreciation of the artwork).
Another type of reference will be if the artwork really is only a commentary on two different traditions in art, say two schools, and unless you know about the two schools, you wouldn't get anything out of the artwork.
Could you give an example?
loseyourname
Aug18-05, 05:16 PM
Yes, that is also an ugly image of war and was exactly the sort of thing Picasso was conveying.
Sure, but Picasso gave an eye to composition and depth, negative space and balance, making his work more aesthetically appealing. That is the difference between art and documentation.
arildno
Aug18-05, 05:16 PM
Could you give an example?
I don't bother to remember stuff I don't care for.
But, you can find plenty of modern composers who with their pling-plongs reputedly makes an "ironic comment" to this or that previous composer.
Read a typical art review column to find explicit statements of why this or that piece of art is great because it combines or comments on some other, totally obscure artworks.:blah-blah.:yuck:
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 05:18 PM
Guernica is only about Guernica because Picasso said so. If we came upon the painting without that knowledge all we find is the same unmistakable Picasso composition of line, form, rhythm and color that he used in all his paintings done in that style. He may jut as well have claimed that any of his cubist portraits depicted war-scarred people, or mentally ill people, or whatever. His claims about what they depict and how they are depicted are pretty much confabulation. His art works because he really knew how to paint an interesting line, how to juxtapose colors, and how to compose a visual field.
Sure, but Picasso gave an eye to composition and depth, negative space and balance, making his work more aesthetically appealing. That is the difference between art and documentation.
I think we're using two different definitions of "beautiful". You're using it as "brilliantly, wonderfully done piece of art" and I'll agree Guernica is. I'm using "beautiful" as in eye candy. A buxom blonde with a basketful of bigeyed puppies going over a scenic waterfall.
There's no shortage at all of laypersons who find absolutely nothing aesthetically appealing about Geurnica and I doubt Picasso was ever intending to "pleasure their senses."
arildno
Aug18-05, 05:24 PM
Take the following example of the worthless outpourings of today's so-called artists:
http://www.nataliedee.com/110402/modernart2.jpg
arildno
Aug18-05, 05:29 PM
I think we're using two different definitions of "beautiful". You're using it as "brilliantly, wonderfully done piece of art" and I'll agree Guernica is. I'm using "beautiful" as in eye candy.
But that is PRECISELY what's wrong with so-called modern art theory!
A mere twisting of words.
Mozart's music is beautiful, but it is not ear-candy (oops, BAD metaphor.. :redface:).
loseyourname
Aug18-05, 05:30 PM
I just can't see why anyone would ever want to look at or otherwise sensually experience something that didn't appeal to their senses. There are kinds of appeal more sophisticated than eye candy, but I don't think that makes them any less beautiful. When something is just flat-out ugly, the natural reaction is to not want to look at it (except maybe out of morbid curiosity). Why would one create a work of visual art that causes the viewer to not want to look at it? The idea is to draw people in, and that is only done by appealing to the senses. I am definitely of the opinion that Picasso, and just about every other artist that has ever lived, was very much attempting to draw people in, by appealing to their senses, with every painting and drawing he ever composed.
Just to note, I don't see what's beautiful about a buxom blonde with a basketful of puppies. That's more comical than anything else. To be considered beautiful, shouldn't something at least be interesting to look at?
By the way, this should be in value theory. That forum never sees any action.
arildno
Aug18-05, 05:32 PM
Yeah, you're right, loseyourname:
I've never found any interest in watching buxom women..
"Real art" to me is the ability to draw or paint something recognizable. That requires skill to do well. The ability to paint or draw a face and make it look alive is "real art". Anything else, to me, are just "designs".
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 05:41 PM
Take the following example of the worthless outpourings of today's so-called artists:
I'm not sure at all what point you're making, but I like that thing you posted. It has alot of energy and variety.
"Real art" to me is the ability to draw or paint something recognizable. That requires skill to do well. The ability to paint or draw a face and make it look alive is "real art". Anything else, to me, are just "designs".
Nah, any dingus can go to some technical school and learn how to paint a pretty picture. That's not art.
arildno
Aug18-05, 05:48 PM
I'm not sure at all what point you're making, but I like that thing you posted. It has alot of energy and variety.
Just children's scribble, that's all there is to it.
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 05:54 PM
I just can't see why anyone would ever want to look at or otherwise sensually experience something that didn't appeal to their senses. There are kinds of appeal more sophisticated than eye candy, but I don't think that makes them any less beautiful. When something is just flat-out ugly, the natural reaction is to not want to look at it (except maybe out of morbid curiosity). Why would one create a work of visual art that causes the viewer to not want to look at it?
I believe the Dada movement was responsible for this unashamed, open, perversion of art. While some movements explored new, non-classical ways of finding things of beauty and interest, the Dada-ists and their descendents were actively anti-art; essentially subversives.
This trend was taken up by the "conceptual" artists of the 1970's whose art was not meant to be of any sensual interest in and of itself, but to suggest "concepts" to the viewer, some of which were quite disturbing, and of questionable merit. Chris Burden was the main perpetrator here. He did a piece called Breathing Water, for example, a performance piece, in which he stuck his face into a basin of water and inhaled as much of it into his lungs as he could stand. The point was to plant the concept "breathing water" in the mind of the audience. Don't ask me why that was of any importance, but this movement was all the rage at the time and serious art critics disected and studied it as if it were VERY important.
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 05:57 PM
Just children's scribble, that's all there is to it.
Actually, it's better than the usual children's scribble. I don't know if you happened to catch the works of the departed Bicycle Tree but the thing you posted is genius by comparison.
arildno
Aug18-05, 06:00 PM
Actually, it's better than the usual children's scribble.
Tell that to the child's Mom&Dad..:wink:
arildno
Aug18-05, 06:04 PM
This is presumably art as well:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2005/01/13/sculpt372.jpg
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 06:10 PM
Nah, any dingus can go to some technical school and learn how to paint a pretty picture.
This is true, but the stuff that any dingus produces upon graduation is recognizably trite and uncreative.
Technical expertise empowers many artists, just as it does musicians.
Barbara Edwards (Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain) says that "abstract" artists come to her all the time wanting to learn to draw realistically, and that some have confessed the reason they never did it (realism) before was that they couldn't.
Some artists content themselves with abstract art because they can't discipline themselves to learn realstic art, not even by pushing themselves to get into a technical school.
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 06:15 PM
This is presumably art as well:
The "child's scribble" is much much better than the big yellow intrusive thing.
Nah, any dingus can go to some technical school and learn how to paint a pretty picture. That's not art.They might learn to draw something recognizable, but it won't look alive, that takes talent. You can't "learn" talent, you learn technique. Technique without talent = crap.
arildno
Aug18-05, 06:21 PM
This is true, but the stuff that any dingus produces upon graduation is recognizably trite and uncreative.
Technical expertise empowers many artists, just as it does musicians.
Barbara Edwards (Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain) says that "abstract" artists come to her all the time wanting to learn to draw realistically, and that some have confessed the reason they never did it (realism) before was that they couldn't.
Some artists content themselves with abstract art because they can't discipline themselves to learn realstic art, not even by pushing themselves to get into a technical school.
So very true.
Picasso possessed the ability to draw in a classical manner to the fullest extent; so many after him have lacked the intellectual discipline&rigour needed to do just that, and hence, fail to produce good art.
Consistent with what I said earlier, you don't get to be an artist with only woozy ideas floating about in your head; you must discipline yourself to learn the tools of the trade if you are to grow into a true artist.
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 06:32 PM
Tell that to the child's Mom&Dad..:wink:
Ever seen anything by Hundertwasser?
Google Image Result for http://www1.kunsthauswien.com/hw-images/okologie-gen.jpg
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www1.kunsthauswien.com/hw-images/okologie-gen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www1.kunsthauswien.com/deutsch/okologie.htm&h=311&w=237&sz=31&tbnid=ImifvLAzAt8J:&tbnh=113&tbnw=86&hl=en&start=29&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHundertwasser%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D 10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN
Very child-like, but extremely appealing.(IMO)
zoobyshoe
Aug18-05, 06:45 PM
Consistent with what I said earlier, you don't get to be an artist with only woozy ideas floating about in your head; you must discipline yourself to learn the tools of the trade if you are to grow into a true artist.
Yes, expressing your ideas articulately in any medium takes discipline and rigor. Having that, then an artists might fly into spontaneous creativity.
arildno
Aug18-05, 06:47 PM
Yes, expressing your ideas articulately in any medium takes discipline and rigor. Having that, then an artists might fly into spontaneous creativity.
As can a mathematician, or a clever experimental biologist.
It's about training up your muscles before you can fly, I guess.
When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911, and
Moan Lisa?
Damn! My dyslexia is showing up. :blushing:
"Real art" to me is the ability to draw or paint something recognizable. That requires skill to do well. The ability to paint or draw a face and make it look alive is "real art". Anything else, to me, are just "designs".
Seconded, modern art can be all most any thing, and need no skill at all, just
a famous name will sell it, to me Lowry is the limit.
fuzzyfelt
Aug19-05, 07:55 AM
Seconded, modern art can be all most any thing, and need no skill at all, just
a famous name will sell it, to me Lowry is the limit.
Hard to respond right now, wearing a police hat as I am, incidentally don't know if its any harder than wearing face paint or being drenched midst water fight as usual, but just seems more distracting. I've enjoyed reading everyones views so much.
I can't speak for other painters, but for me, coming from an artistic family, I've been learning about art all my life. I've been schooled in figurative and nonfigurative painting. For me figurative comes naturally and its beauty is rewarding. Like therapy, I really enjoy painting like that. It does seem a bit selfish and wasteful. I think more abstracted art allows more room to explore more concepts, and is a greater challange that feels more satisfying in the end.
As for the cult of fame, everyone who is good at selling themselves will probably acheive greater acclaim than they neccessarly warrant, and perhaps it is easier to get away with this in art, than in more precise fields.
I could go on, and on, and on, but I have to arrest some bad guys now.
Hard to respond right now, wearing a police hat as I am, incidentally don't know if its any harder than wearing face paint or being drenched midst water fight as usual, but just seems more distracting. I've enjoyed reading everyones views so much.
I can't speak for other painters, but for me, coming from an artistic family, I've been learning about art all my life. I've been schooled in figurative and nonfigurative painting. For me figurative comes naturally and its beauty is rewarding. Like therapy, I really enjoy painting like that. It does seem a bit selfish and wasteful. I think more abstracted art allows more room to explore more concepts, and is a greater challange that feels more satisfying in the end.
As for the cult of fame, everyone who is good at selling themselves will probably acheive greater acclaim than they neccessarly warrant, and perhaps it is easier to get away with this in art, than in more precise fields.
I could go on, and on, and on, but I have to arrest some bad guys now
.
Some modern, abstract, art can be pleasing to look at, but i could fill this
thread with pictures of "so called modern art", that an infant could do in
two minutes, i really think some of these artists play on their name.
Watch out bad guys.
zoobyshoe
Aug19-05, 09:02 AM
I think more abstracted art allows more room to explore more concepts, and is a greater challange that feels more satisfying in the end.
What sort of thing falls under the heading of a "concept" for you?
fuzzyfelt
Aug19-05, 10:09 AM
Did I use the term incorrectly? I meant that although you can explore further abstracted ideas when confined by very natural representation, through things like the media and metaphor, that there is more freedom to do this without being so limited.
http://www.evogallery.org/?table=Artist&do=thumbs&id=22
Is this art? I think not.
arildno
Aug19-05, 10:23 AM
http://www.evogallery.org/?table=Artist&do=thumbs&id=22
Is this art? I think not.
This is precisely the type of worthless crap that passes for art these days.
Read any art review of this, and the "artist" will be lauded for his ability to combine several traditions and poking fun at some earlier predecessors.
Or some equally nonsensical review.
arildno
Aug19-05, 10:26 AM
Take, for example, al ook at the following idiot review of a "sculpture" the same artist made:
http://www.haberarts.com/serra.htm
Take, for example, al ook at the following idiot review of a "sculpture" the same artist made:
http://www.haberarts.com/serra.htm
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That guy is king of the Dick Heads.
Aww, please Fi, if this is art i should sell my garage wall, it has some great
patterns all done in oils :biggrin:
fuzzyfelt
Aug19-05, 10:52 AM
Sorry I deleted my message. I felt bad about commenting not quite raptuously on someone's work because it is subjective. I still think it could look good in your dream home, Wolram.
Sorry I deleted my message. I felt bad about commenting not quite raptuously on someone's work because it is subjective. I still think it could look good in your dream home, Wolram.
I was thinking of asking you to do the decor, can you do rustic?
zoobyshoe
Aug19-05, 11:01 AM
Did I use the term incorrectly?
Not that I'm aware of.
The reason I asked is that the word "concept" can be used to cover such a broad field that I'm left not knowing what specific sorts of things you feel are better explored abstractly.
fuzzyfelt
Aug19-05, 11:29 AM
I was thinking of asking you to do the decor, can you do rustic?
Rustic is my favourite. My Grandfather (artist/wood-turner/stone-mason/sculptor) built his house with a stone chimeny, exposed beams, lovely!
The walls were covered with his paintings, some suited to the house, but mostly of naked women which was a little incongruous. If I were doing your decor I wouldn't recommend quite so many naked women.
As for your garage door, Deauchamp's Ready Mades have already been done, but that this has been added to in a way that traces the years of grime and passion, not unlike Pollock's tracing of his trancelike state of creation, it should be critically recieved.
I yearn for a rustic cottage, and i not mad on nudes, they are ok in a gallery
but not in my dream home, i picture solid ageless and comfy rooms, the art
would have to fit in with that. :smile:
honestrosewater
Aug19-05, 01:05 PM
You guys (wolram, arildno, et al) should like the chairman of the Art Renewal Center, Fred Ross - these two rants, er, articles especially :smile:: Reviewing the Reviewers (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2001/A_Hoving_Eye/hoving1.asp); Good Art/Bad Art (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2001/ASOPA/bad_art_good_art1.asp)
The scientists here should understand the pressure to produce something original and useful that helps their field progress. The same pressure is there for many artists. I don't think you should curb your criticism, but I think you should at least acknowledge that it's not necessarily a scheme or lack of effort on the artist's part; They could just be trying to do something new.
I read a great article about an artist's struggle to produce original work; I think artists are alone in this process and responsible for the result in a way that scientists are not. I can't find the article now, but Hemingway touches on this in his Nobel acceptance speech:
How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has been well written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him.
- http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1954/hemingway-speech.html
I loved the Fred Ross article, he is certainly a man who can pick out the
fraudsters, I do not know much about art, only that one needs passion to
create a beautiful image and that passion needs inspiration, i think an artist
should not think that he/she can produce to order, so good artists will all ways
be poor.
hypnagogue
Aug19-05, 02:51 PM
I honestly don't understand arguments about art like this one. It seems clear to me that there is no fact of the matter about what is good art and what is bad art-- the aesthetic experience is created in the mind of each individual experiencer. There is no ultimate authority to which we can appeal to say definitively that this is good, and that is bad (unlike in the sciences, where we can appeal to nature itself as the ultimate authority).
So ultimately we can only offer individual opinions and leave it at that; it seems there is no sense in trying to persuade someone to change their views about what constitutes good art. If one actually does persuade another to change their views, all one has done is to bring another's subjective evaluation of art more in line with one's own, which itself is rather arbitrary. Certainly such a persuasion does not amount to bringing one closer to (or farther from) any sort of objective truth.
arildno
Aug19-05, 02:57 PM
I honestly don't understand arguments about art like this one. It seems clear to me that there is no fact of the matter about what is good art and what is bad art-- the aesthetic experience is created in the mind of each individual experiencer. There is no ultimate authority to which we can appeal to say definitively that this is good, and that is bad (unlike in the sciences, where we can appeal to nature itself as the ultimate authority).
So ultimately we can only offer individual opinions and leave it at that; it seems there is no sense in trying to persuade someone to change their views about what constitutes good art. If one actually does persuade another to change their views, all one has done is to bring another's subjective evaluation of art more in line with one's own, which itself is rather arbitrary. Certainly such a persuasion does not amount to bringing one closer to (or farther from) any sort of objective truth.
Sure, and these are often arguments given by the art clique in defense of what most would regard as the sheerest nonsense.
However, the very same persons regard themselves to know "better" than the average person; in particular, they regard their own derision of popular cultural expressions as well-founded.
PS :
I do not think you suffer from this double-thinking hypnagogue.
Sure, and these are often arguments given by the art clique in defense of what most would regard as the sheerest nonsense.
However, the very same persons regard themselves to know "better" than the average person; in particular, they regard their own derision of popular cultural expressions as well-founded.
PS :
I do not think you suffer from this double-thinking hypnagogue.
Yes some plonker could stand a wreaked car on its boot, trunk and call it art
do we have to belive him/her, i think deep down every one knows this stuff
is rubbish.
arildno
Aug19-05, 03:27 PM
Yes some plonker could stand a wreaked car on its boot, trunk and call it art
do we have to belive him/her, i think deep down every one knows this stuff
is rubbish.
Agreed.
However, a person who can say lots of interesting stuff about a wreaked car can be said to have the potential of becoming a comedian, at least..:wink:
honestrosewater
Aug19-05, 03:47 PM
I think arguments about what the goals of an artist, or art in general, should be (note the should) can only be based on personal opinion, but I don't think such arguments are pointless. Changing the way a person views art can make their experience more (or less) enjoyable, richer, etc.
But once the goals are set, an argument over whether an artist has achieved their goals can be decided by logic and evidence. Assuming that an artist who offers their work to the public actually wants the public to accept and consume it, i.e., look at it, listen to it, read it, maybe even appreciate or pay for it, the art rejected here is 'bad', in the sense that it hasn't served its purpose. Granted, this may not be the goal of every artist, but assuming that they want their work to be consumed by the most people possible, I don't think smearing excrement on canvas is the way to go.
Er, actually, now that I think of it, maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity in the short-term. I'm not sure that this is a successful strategy in the long run though.
I have had a look on the net, to me some of the best i could find were
sci fi artists, now some one is going to say how ignorant i am, but they
look skillfully done to me.
arildno
Aug19-05, 04:01 PM
I think arguments about what the goals of an artist, or art in general, should be (note the should) can only be based on personal opinion, but I don't think such arguments are pointless. Changing the way a person views art can make their experience more (or less) enjoyable, richer, etc.
But once the goals are set, an argument over whether an artist has achieved their goals can be decided by logic and evidence. Assuming that an artist who offers their work to the public actually wants the public to accept and consume it, i.e., look at it, listen to it, read it, maybe even appreciate or pay for it, the art rejected here is 'bad', in the sense that it hasn't served its purpose. Granted, this may not be the goal of every artist, but assuming that they want their work to be consumed by the most people possible, I don't think smearing excrement on canvas is the way to go.
Good points.
What I would like to add, is the particular quality that truly great artists have:
The ability to produce a work of art that has almost UNIVERSAL appeal, yet that you always can return to, and be enriched by (it conveys some deep truths, if you like).
What I've wanted to focus on, is that this universality of appeal should be regarded as a REQUIREMENT for what constitutes great art.
In particular, an individual who knows nothing of art is to have a (preferably great) aesthetic experience when encountering the art work.
It must not be needed for him to have read many art books; the art work must have the strength to speak to him on its own, not by its myriad of contained references to earlier works the viewer is unacquainted with, but which the artist have been informed by in his creation.
But nowadays, the appreciation of art has become something of an elitist activity; most of us are unable to find any sort of aesthetic enjoyments from the so-called art works.
We're told tthat this is because you must devote your life to study art in order to appreciate how great it truly is.
I would rather say that this lack of general appeal is indicative of the work's mediocrity/worthlessness.
I don't mean to say that IF you study a great artwork, you won't be able to find out lots of interesting stuff that a cursory glance can't give you, but you don't make crap into art by over-studying it, either..
hypnagogue
Aug19-05, 04:16 PM
My own view is that a lot of modern art is garbage. I'm not impressed by someone's act of throwing paint around haphazardly on a canvas, or by blowing up 1950s style comic book art to giant proportions, etc. (The worst I've seen was a piece called "Presence," and it was literally just a canvas that had been 'painted' a uniform white.) Still, if other people get kicks out of these things, I don't begrudge them that, or think that they're deluded or misguided or whatever. More power to them.
I read the "Bad Art/Good Art" article by Ross, and I'm sympathetic with his concern to fight against the modernist movement, if all the things he says about it are true. However, Ross seems to hold that good art is only more or less photorealistic art, judging by his writing and the picture examples he adorns the article with. I'm not really a fan of Picasso, but I do find aesthetic value in some works by Matisse and Cezanne. I'm left to wonder what Ross thinks of a painter like Van Gogh, who is one of my favorites, but whose work resembles Cezanne and Matisse more than it does Waterhouse and Bouguereau. Basically, the fringes of abstract/modern art are mostly worthless to me, but at least in my own case, I find that surreal art can sometimes be more attractive than highly realistic pieces.
arildno
Aug19-05, 04:27 PM
However, Ross seems to hold that good art is only more or less photorealistic art, judging by his writing and the picture examples he adorns the article with.
I agree; this is utter nonsense!
Designs, as Evo have put it, certainly can qualify as art; after all the adornments, lines and colours and patterns used within architecture throughout the ages are more often abstract or not.
Just transferring abstract design onto a new medium, the canvas, does not as such dequalify it from being art, IMO.
I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.
honestrosewater
Aug19-05, 04:52 PM
I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.
arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.
honestrosewater
Aug19-05, 04:59 PM
I agree; this is utter nonsense!
Designs, as Evo have put it, certainly can qualify as art; after all the adornments, lines and colours and patterns used within architecture throughout the ages are more often abstract or not.
Just transferring abstract design onto a new medium, the canvas, does not as such dequalify it from being art, IMO.I happen to love sketches, sometimes more than the finished piece. They have a thought-in-action kind of quality. Though I think they would look out of place framed on a wall. Part of their appeal for me is that they are 'unfinished'.
I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.
arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.
May be there is a glut of artists and most should see art as their second job.
honestrosewater
Aug19-05, 11:14 PM
May be there is a glut of artists and most should see art as their second job. :biggrin: The same has been said of writers:
"Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them."
- Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964)
[and here's more]
"Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers."
- T. S. Eliot (1888-1965)
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)
- http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/quotes.htmlHe has a great collection.
Your images are still awaiting approval. :frown:
zoobyshoe
Aug19-05, 11:37 PM
Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached...
Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,
The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.
honestrosewater
Aug20-05, 12:49 AM
Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,I was going to bring this up eventually if no one else did - seriously. There is new technology, new life forms or natural phenomena or such being discovered, new jobs, new cities, new philosophies and paradigms. The individual arts also feed each other in more seemingly mundane but potentially useful ways: new clothing fashions for portraits, new architecture for streetscapes, new dishware for still lifes, and so on.
The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new? Genetically-modified fruit in a lab with a beaker, anyone? Sorry, I'm tired, maybe just rambling. I thought I had a point somewhere, but it's gone. :redface:
I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.I agree........
cronxeh
Aug20-05, 01:03 AM
http://carboninside.com/55186809_l.gif
By Rose Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new? Genetically-modified fruit in a lab with a beaker, anyone? Sorry, I'm tired, maybe just rambling. I thought I had a point somewhere, but it's gone.
The point i think is, it is boring however skillfully done, these paintings are ok
for background decoration, some paintings catch the eye as soon as you walk
into a room ,and draw you to them for a closer look, even me an art virgin.
but they are art, unlike the painting i posted, the one on the right.
I agree........
Wey hey, we will soon have an army :biggrin:
honestrosewater
Aug20-05, 03:12 AM
The point i think is, it is boring however skillfully done, these paintings are ok
for background decoration, some paintings catch the eye as soon as you walk
into a room ,and draw you to them for a closer look, even me an art virgin.
but they are art, unlike the painting i posted, the one on the right.Ah, but you've never seen a Rosewater still life, have you? :biggrin: Now I just have to learn how to paint so I can show you how effective that idea could be. It wouldn't be completely in a lab, BTW. I would mix lab features with the home setting. I think. I haven't given it a lot of thought.
Ah, but you've never seen a Rosewater still life, have you? :biggrin: Now I just have to learn how to paint so I can show you how effective that idea could be. It wouldn't be completely in a lab, BTW. I would mix lab features with the home setting. I think. I haven't given it a lot of thought.
I guess if it matches your other skills it would pass muster :rofl: Do i detect
some wee wee takeing :tongue2: I have admitted i know nowt about art, only
what i like, dislike, so take pity on this mechanic in your arty world :confused:
honestrosewater
Aug20-05, 04:04 AM
I guess if it matches your other skills it would pass muster :rofl: Do i detect
some wee wee takeing :tongue2: I have admitted i know nowt about art, only
what i like, dislike, so take pity on this mechanic in your arty world :confused: :rofl: Gordon Bennett, what the ecky thump is wee wee takeing?!?
arildno
Aug20-05, 05:21 AM
I don't agree with everything in those articles, BTW.
arildno just made me see a possible vicious circle here: In order to keep their craft/field alive and growing, artists try to contribute something to it that is both original and appeals to the widest audience possible. Assuming there is a limit on the number of works that have almost universal appeal, this limit is eventually reached, and in order to be original, the artists must settle for the next widest level of appeal, whose limit is eventually reached, and so on. As the works decrease in appeal, new consumers are turned off, and the artists' field stagnates and, unless the older works can continue to draw people in, dies.
I think artists should worry less about getting their work original, than endeavouring it to be authentic.
The one who tries to be original must always refer to, and distance himself from what has gone before, i.e, his works will basically be limited to being comments on, or breaks with earlier artistic traditions.
Trying to make your art authentic however, by not feeling satisfied until you feel some strong form of connection or identification with your own work, that it becomes an expression of your individuality is the way to go, in my opinion.
Besides, since we're all unique individuals, originality in the work will be an effect of the search for authenticity.
Take a look at the following photograph called "Embrace" by Robert Mapplethorpe (it's one of my favourites, along with the self portrait I linked to earlier):
http://www.iol.ie/~webfoto/maple2j.htm
Although in many ways a "classic" embrace, it is not derivative because it has a ring of authenticity and passion in it.
It doesn't matter how many earlier works of art it is reminiscent of (and an art historian could probably come up with dozens of such references); it has the strength to speak to the viewer on its own.
While the motif is evidently "gay", and hence will speak to gays somewhat differently than to straights, I wouldn't think that straights are barred from deriving some aesthetic experience from it.
It seems to me also original the way light and darkness are used here.
As for analyzing it:
Is it a home-coming? A farewell?
Or is it simply two strangers who accidentally met, and connects for a brief moment of intimacy?
Does it really matter, in the end, what we end up thinking about it?
As far as I see, it is art because it first and foremost is visually striking, not because it contains some sort of coded message the viewer must decipher.
arildno
Aug20-05, 06:02 AM
I think the top picture is worthy of art, the second not.
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.
Ay up, i am starting to feel all sophisticated :rofl:
zoobyshoe
Aug20-05, 09:58 AM
Yet people can still get stuck in a rut. I've seen a bazillion still lifes, all basically the same: some fruit on a table with a pitcher. If you're thinking of creating something original, do you even consider such a subject? How could it possibly be made new?
Here's a new one:
Botero, Fernando: Still Life with Watermelon
Address:http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botero/botero_watermelon.jpg.html
Each still life, or portrait, or landscape, is "new" by virtue of the fact each artist has his or her own specific aesthetic approach. A Dali still life, is vastly different than a Frieda Kahlo, or a Jeanne DuVal. Each artist has a very different idea about what should be observed and emphasized about the pitcher, or the fruit. We don't look at a still life to find out about pitchers and fruit, but to find out about the artist's take on them.
If you think of still life as a subject, then there hasn't been an original subject since cave paintings. Every "subject" has been done over and over a bazillion times: still life, portrait, allegory, religious illustration, landscape, marine pictures, whatever you want to categrize as a subject. Originality lies, and has always laid, in the individual artist's approach.
zoobyshoe
Aug20-05, 10:14 AM
I agree with you completely.
In fact, I think the first is great.
I also agree. The second one is so pointless and boring you have to wonder why they bothered.
Edit: Wolram, who painted the first one, and is there more of that artist's stuff online?
I also agree. The second one is so pointless and boring you have to wonder why they bothered.
Edit: Wolram, who painted the first one, and is there more of that artist's stuff online?
Artist, Antoine de Villiers.
http://www.antoineart.com/abastract-oil-paintings.htm
I like this artist, have fun Zooby. :biggrin:
By Zooby Here's a new one:
Botero, Fernando: Still Life with Watermelon
Address:http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/...rmelon.jpg.html
That is a great painting, but my eye is drawn to the hotch potch houses,
which to my mind spoils it.
My favorite artist is Salvadore Dali I acctually have a poster of his painting in my room. I really like this one aldo it doesnt have Dali's classical clocks.http://sophia.smith.edu/~egraf/dali1944.jpg
[COLOR=Red]My favorite artist is Salvadore Dali I acctually have a poster of his painting in my room. I really like this one aldo it doesnt have Dali's classical clocks.
Is there some meaning in this painting?
Is there some meaning in this painting?
There definatelly is.
There definatelly is.
Please explain, why the bayonet in the nudes arm, etc
Please explain, why the bayonet in the nudes arm, etc
It's not actually in her arm. It's just pointed at her (the picture isn't realy of the highest quolity). But appart from that it's a dream image. I just choose this one becouse it conteins most of the concepts of Dalis painting if you want to know more about him I would sugest Google.
honestrosewater
Aug21-05, 04:58 AM
In case I didn't make it clear enough, I wasn't suggesting what should or does happen but what could possibly happen. I agree with most of what you guys said, but I don't think an artist can rely on chance to ensure that their work is original. It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.
arildno
Aug21-05, 08:30 AM
In case I didn't make it clear enough, I wasn't suggesting what should or does happen but what could possibly happen. I agree with most of what you guys said, but I don't think an artist can rely on chance to ensure that their work is original. It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.
My point was merely that by trying to be original, you've already misdirected your attention.
Rather, you should try to be authentic; to worry about whether your work is original or not is a minor concern, IMO.
honestrosewater
Aug21-05, 09:09 AM
My point was merely that by trying to be original, you've already misdirected your attention.
Rather, you should try to be authentic; to worry about whether your work is original or not is a minor concern, IMO.Okay, and what if every painter produced the same painting? This is just to prove a point - nevermind how realistic or probable it is. What if every single painter just naturally produced the same painting? IMO, that is not an artistic endeavor but public masturbation.
arildno
Aug21-05, 09:15 AM
Okay, and what if every painter produced the same painting? This is just to prove a point - nevermind how realistic or probable it is. What if every single painter just naturally produced the same painting? IMO, that is not an artistic endeavor but public masturbation.
1)Well, since it isn't realistic, it cannot be used to prove any point about the real world.
2) An artist should endeavour to make a painting he himself find important to himself.
If, by some unhappy chance that is a painting identical to a previous one, it simply means that an outsider won't be impressed by it.
It might well be called art, though, even if it remains unsellable..
arildno
Aug21-05, 10:53 AM
Is there some meaning in this painting?
Does it have to be?
Why should a painting contain some encoded message we as viewers are supposed to decipher?
Does it have to be?
Why should a painting contain some encoded message we as viewers are supposed to decipher?
I am not sure what you mean arildno, the artist must have had some thing in mind when he painted it, are we to decipher his thoughts, may be incorrectly?
The painting to me is whimsical, tragic and insane, is that the idea?
arildno
Aug21-05, 12:08 PM
I am not sure what you mean arildno, the artist must have had some thing in mind when he painted it, are we to decipher his thoughts, may be incorrectly?
The painting to me is whimsical, tragic and insane, is that the idea?
Does it matter to me, as a viewer, what the artist might have meant with it?
For me as a viewer, I'm frankly more interested to find out what the artwork means to me..
Does it matter to me, as a viewer, what the artist might have meant with it?
For me as a viewer, I'm frankly more interested to find out what the artwork means to me..
I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?
I like Salvador Dali. This one is titled "Design for the Interior Decoration of a Stable-Library, 1942"
arildno
Aug21-05, 12:33 PM
I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?
well, if the artist had some ideas he really wanted to convey, and be sure that no one misunderstood him, shouldn't he have written an essay rather than painting a picture?
zoobyshoe
Aug21-05, 12:44 PM
It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.
This is pretty much what I'm suggesting, yes. If you've ever sat in a life drawing class where everyone is sketching the same model, you would see the astonishing variety of approaches that always occurs naturally.
In fact, copying another artists style, or aesthetic takes alot of work, and has to be done deliberately, on purpose.
Beginners only imitate other artists when they're unsure of their own style and technique. That's an acceptable way to learn, but the ones who don't grow out of it, end up being trite. As Arildno said, it's not so much a matter of making a deliberate effort to be original, which can just end up in contrivance, as it is being authentic: true to your own sense of aesthetics. If an artist persues the latter, then originality follows as a matter of course.
arildno
Aug21-05, 12:47 PM
I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?
Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
To these artists, making their painting in that particular way just "felt right" to them.
This doesn't mean that interesting parallells and evolutions in the history cannot legitimately be pointed out by the art critic, but it doesn't really have a lot to do with the creative imagination of the true artist.
Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
Like me! :rolleyes:
well, if the artist had some ideas he really wanted to convey, and be sure that no one misunderstood him, shouldn't he have written an essay rather than painting a picture?
So if one meets the artist and tells him, That is tragic scene, and he replies,
oh no it is supposed to be light hearted and whimsical, is that not insulting ?
zoobyshoe
Aug21-05, 12:59 PM
I give up, i will never understand art and artists, they seem to exists on an
alternate level, as for giving ones own interpretation to a painting, is that not
an insult to the artist ?
I agree. The viewer should see the painting as an expression of that artist's mind, and try to derive something about that artists world view from it. Dali's paintings are about the mind and imagination of Dali. The fact that artworks can function as rohrschach tests for the viewer is more something to be overcome, than encouraged, when appreciating art.
honestrosewater
Aug21-05, 12:59 PM
1)Well, since it isn't realistic, it cannot be used to prove any point about the real world.Does a situation being unlikely stop you from being able to imagine how you would react if it did occur? Don't people gain useful information from hypothetical questions all the time? That's all I'm asking: If every painting produced was exactly the same, what would the field or craft of painting be like, what function would it serve in society, would anyone even pay any attention to it, etc.?
2) An artist should endeavour to make a painting he himself find important to himself.Sure, I agree completely. I'm saying that this shouldn't be the only main goal. By an artist not caring whether their work is original, they miss the whole social aspect of art.
If, by some unhappy chance that is a painting identical to a previous one, it simply means that an outsider won't be impressed by it.
It might well be called art, though, even if it remains unsellable..If no one other than the artist is impressed the work, I don't see how art as a field could survive. How would it if it collectively only produced one piece of art over and over again? What if every mathematician suddenly decided, "I'm going to choose a theorem that I happen to like, and whether it's already been proven or not, I'm going to spend as long as it takes in order to prove it myself."
:smile:
I agree. The viewer should see the painting as an expression of that artist's mind, and try to derive something about that artists world view from it. Dali's paintings are about the mind and imagination of Dali. The fact that artworks can function as rohrschach tests for the viewer is more something to be overcome, than encouraged, when appreciating art.
Thank you Zooby, and :tongue2: to some other person :biggrin:
zoobyshoe
Aug21-05, 01:13 PM
Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
To these artists, making their painting in that particular way just "felt right" to them.
This is absolutely, absolutely correct! Artists work by "feel". There is, of course, always a great deal of conscious attention to technique and skill, but the general drive behind a work takes place on the level of "feel".
This doesn't mean that interesting parallells and evolutions in the history cannot legitimately be pointed out by the art critic, but it doesn't really have a lot to do with the creative imagination of the true artist.
Except in some obvious cases where an artist becomes enamored of a prior artist or style or movement and borrows from it. Van Gogh did alot of improvisation around Japanese prints for a while, for example, and looking at how he approached them, it's not too hard to see why he was drawn to them, and what he kept from the experience in later works. There are lots of other examples of this with other artists.
zoobyshoe
Aug21-05, 01:16 PM
Thank you Zooby, and :tongue2: to some other person :biggrin:
"...and to some other person." ?????
honestrosewater
Aug21-05, 01:18 PM
This is pretty much what I'm suggesting, yes. If you've ever sat in a life drawing class where everyone is sketching the same model, you would see the astonishing variety of approaches that always occurs naturally.What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?
In fact, copying another artists style, or aesthetic takes alot of work, and has to be done deliberately, on purpose.Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occured naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect. Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.
Beginners only imitate other artists when they're unsure of their own style and technique. That's an acceptable way to learn, but the ones who don't grow out of it, end up being trite. As Arildno said, it's not so much a matter of making a deliberate effort to be original, which can just end up in contrivance, as it is being authentic: true to your own sense of aesthetics. If an artist persues the latter, then originality follows as a matter of course.Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.
:smile:
I can see what Rose means, some thing akin to films, same plot different actors,
It must be difficult to be origonal, Are there differing degrees of originality, ie
Alice in wonder land in 2005.
arildno
Aug21-05, 01:37 PM
What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?
Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occured naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect. Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.
Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.
:smile:
You could rather say that the great artists are great because by being true to themselves, they ALSO show themselves to be original. Those who were true to themselves, but whose art became unoriginal nonetheless, belongs in the realm of mediocrity.
For example:
If I were true to myself artistically, I've no guarantee that the individuality I thereby express would in any manner be original enough to pique the interest of someone else.
zoobyshoe
Aug21-05, 02:02 PM
What makes you think this effect occurs naturally?
From doing it myself, and watching others do it: it's clear that everyone has their own "take" on what is important and interesting about the model, just like everyone in this thread has their own "take" on what makes good art.
Really? It's very easy for me to copy other writers. And I've rejected ideas that occured naturally to me when I noticed that they sounded too much like something someone else has already written; The familiarity changes their effect.
You are talking about ideas here, and not art. Ideas aren't art. Michelangelo had a fantastic idea about David from the biblical story of David slaying the giant, Goliath, which was, to present David himself as a giant figure, which, by virtue of him having done a remarkable thing, he was, in a metaphorical sense.
That is a very neat idea, but it only worked because Michelangelo presented it so beautifully. Once we get used to the cleverness of making a larger-than-life David, that idea fades to the background and it is the beauty of the sculpture in and of itself that continues to make it so admirable.
Do you think any writer would seriously not think twice about saying "to be, or not to be" (unless they intended the reference) even if that was a perfectly appropriate expression of their idea? It would at least be distracting.
In fact, about a bezillion writers have written a bezillion books that boil down to the question "To be or not to be," or "Is life worth living?" The greater or lesser success of any of them is completely independent of their having that question as their base. The success of their writing depends on how well they explore the question, and how interestingly they write in general.
Fine. My question is whether originality should be a goal.
:smile:
No, authenticity should be the goal. If you are true to your own vision of things, originality comes of its own.
I think everyone starts out in the arts because they're impressed by what other artists have done. To the extent their own stuff remains locked on sharing in that; wanting to do what other artists have done, there will always be a rut of imitation right next to them that they must consciously avoid falling into. But artists who shift to getting their inspiration directly from life, rather than from other artwork, don't have to worry about a constant effort to be original.
So what is your next painting going to be, do you ponder for ages, pick
some thing you know you can do justice to, decide at the spur of the
moment, or wait for inspiration.
honestrosewater
Aug21-05, 03:58 PM
You are talking about ideas here, and not art.Sorry, I was talking about the actual words used, as in my example. And ideas are certainly presented in art, as your examples show.
In fact, about a bezillion writers have written a bezillion books that boil down to the question "To be or not to be," or "Is life worth living?" The greater or lesser success of any of them is completely independent of their having that question as their base. The success of their writing depends on how well they explore the question, and how interestingly they write in general.My question was whether you think a writer would think twice about using the actual phrase "to be, or not to be." It is an incredibly well-known phrase, so when people read it, there's a good chance that they will recognize it and think of Hamlet. If a writer wants to use the phrase but doesn't want to make the reader think of Hamlet, they have a problem.
No, authenticity should be the goal. If you are true to your own vision of things, originality comes of its own.So that's a clear no? You think originality should not be a goal? You seem to imply that it should be a goal but that people just don't need to consciously try to achieve it, so I'm still a bit confused. Is originality good or not?
And seriously, how can a person guarantee that beng true to their own vision will result in an original work? I don't think they can. It is leaving it to chance, which, in my personal opinion, is irresponsible.
I think everyone starts out in the arts because they're impressed by what other artists have done. To the extent their own stuff remains locked on sharing in that; wanting to do what other artists have done, there will always be a rut of imitation right next to them that they must consciously avoid falling into. But artists who shift to getting their inspiration directly from life, rather than from other artwork, don't have to worry about a constant effort to be original.I'm not suggesting that people should copy each other - I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. I think that artists should try to be original and genuine.
zoobyshoe
Aug21-05, 05:53 PM
So what is your next painting going to be,
I draw, not paint and I use regular pencil, or colored pencils.
do you ponder for ages, pick
some thing you know you can do justice to, decide at the spur of the
moment, or wait for inspiration.
All of the above. I suffer from binges. I may draw straight for four months, doing little else, and then drop it for several months in favor of some other binge, like reading or movie watching. Sometimes I'll rent three or four movies a day for weeks straight. At other times I'll spend eight hours a day reading for weeks straight.
zoobyshoe
Aug21-05, 06:58 PM
Sorry, I was talking about the actual words used, as in my example.
So, you were asking if it's OK to plagiarize? No.
And ideas are certainly presented in art, as your examples show.
Am I smelling a straw man here, from the mistress of Logic? Yes, ideas are presented in art, but they aren't the art, aren't what's artistic about the art. Writers often think they need a new idea. What they really need is to be able to write well about anything. It's like Math Is Hard once said about Morgan Freeman: he's such a good actor that you could sit and listen to him read the phone book. A good writer can write grippingly, and compellingly about the phone book, and a good artist can paint a really fascinating phone book.
My question was whether you think a writer would think twice about using the actual phrase "to be, or not to be." It is an incredibly well-known phrase, so when people read it, there's a good chance that they will recognize it and think of Hamlet. If a writer wants to use the phrase but doesn't want to make the reader think of Hamlet, they have a problem.
This whole question is just plain silly. Using Shakespeare's exact words is either quotation or plagiarism, depending on whether you credit him or try to make people think his words are yours.
And seriously, how can a person guarantee that beng true to their own vision will result in an original work?
This quetion would only occur to someone obsessed with the notion of originality over authenticity. To the extent your work may overlap with anyone elses it simply means you're both human. No one is so unique that their work doesn't overlap with someone somewhere in some way shape or form.
Back when I was doing sculpture, I happened to end up in the same gallery as a sculptor who happened to be using a device very similar to mine, which was putting mask-like faces on solid backgrounds, and painting over all of it. Some people, of course, thought one of us had started copying the devise from the other, but I'd been working with masks since I was eight years old, and he happened to arrive at this structure in his own way, for his own reasons independently of me.
Our stuff was similar only in that overall structure: his stuff had a more "freeform", spontaneous feel to it, and mine was very structured and formal, geometric. We were both a bit perplexed by the accidental similarities of form, but neither of us changed for fear of being unoriginal. We both knew that the idea of a mask-like face on a background panel painted over in acrylic paint, was mere structure, and that the way we each approached it was vastly different.
When I think about the issue of originality I'm never concerned about the possibility of repeating something someone else has done. I'm much more concerned that I don't mindlessly repeat myself: keep cranking out the same drawing over and over. A critic once complained that Vivaldi had written the same concerto 800 times, and in a sense, he had: they're all too similar to each other.
If you are inadvertantly picking up on other people's style, copying their turns of speech and what is particularly unique about them, then, yes, you have a problem and need to concentrate on finding your own "voice". There is a difference between finding your own voice, and doing anything so long as it's original. Originality for originality' sake with the proclaimation: "No one else has ever done it before!" frequently results in pointless and unsatisfying results. "Originality above all" should not be a goal, no.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug21-05, 09:56 PM
I'm trying to find an article on it and can't but not that long ago I read an article about a new "Art Movement" based around plagiarism. The guy heading it up is a professor who apparently really considers it a new artistic expression. Reading his rationale it's really just a bunch of bologna.
On a subject close to plagiarism there is a famous painter by the name of Elmyr de Hory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmyr_de_Hory) who is actually famous for being a forger of master pieces. It is very possible that several of his paintings are currently in galleries and museums today being displayed as the work of Monet or Picasso.
There was a book written about him called Fake! (a title that Lisa! would love) by an author named Clifford Irving who himself is notorious for having written a fake Howard Hughes autobiography. Orson Welles made a film called "F for Fake" based on both stories, considered a brilliant piece of film making art in itself. I really need to see it.
Wolram the earlier Dali painting is called "One Second Before Awakening From a Dream". It depicts a reversed food chain, sort of. The pamegranate or pamegranate seed was used in Renaissance art to symbolize life or the origins of life. There's also the pamegranate with the bee hovering around it at the bottom of the painting that I always thought depicted a symbiotic relationship. I bought a print of that painting once but gave it to a lovely lady that I had a crush on as a gift.
http://bertc.com/subthree/images/dali2c.jpg
zoobyshoe
Aug22-05, 03:22 AM
There is a strange and interesting book (true story) called The Three Christs of Ipsilanti which is about three mental patients at the same intitution who all thought they were Jesus.
One of them, later in the book, developed a peculiar new delusion: he began going to the library and copying all the great works of literature over in his own hand, thereby becoming their "author", in his own mind. Apparently being Jesus wasn't enough for him, he wanted to be the author of the world's great literature as well.
The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger.
arildno
Aug22-05, 04:19 AM
"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.
Wolram the earlier Dali painting is called "One Second Before Awakening From a Dream". It depicts a reversed food chain, sort of. The pamegranate or pamegranate seed was used in Renaissance art to symbolize life or the origins of life. There's also the pamegranate with the bee hovering around it at the bottom of the painting that I always thought depicted a symbiotic relationship. ]
Ah, enlightenment, It sort of makes sense to me now, Thanks
honestrosewater
Aug22-05, 02:30 PM
zooby,
My examples and explanations have been trying to clarify your answer to this:
It sounds like you're suggesting that since each person is unique (in ways that are relevant to their work?), artists don't even need to think about what other people have done, that everyone's work will naturally turn out different, without any effort on the artist's part to make it different.IOW, no artist ever needs to think about being original. That is obviously false to me, so when you said that you thought it was true, I wanted to be sure that you understood what I was asking. But your responses suggest that this isn't what you really think.
So, you were asking if it's OK to plagiarize? No.
Am I smelling a straw man here, from the mistress of Logic? Yes, ideas are presented in art, but they aren't the art, aren't what's artistic about the art. Writers often think they need a new idea. What they really need is to be able to write well about anything. It's like Math Is Hard once said about Morgan Freeman: he's such a good actor that you could sit and listen to him read the phone book. A good writer can write grippingly, and compellingly about the phone book, and a good artist can paint a really fascinating phone book.
This whole question is just plain silly. Using Shakespeare's exact words is either quotation or plagiarism, depending on whether you credit him or try to make people think his words are yours.
This quetion would only occur to someone obsessed with the notion of originality over authenticity. To the extent your work may overlap with anyone elses it simply means you're both human. No one is so unique that their work doesn't overlap with someone somewhere in some way shape or form.
Back when I was doing sculpture, I happened to end up in the same gallery as a sculptor who happened to be using a device very similar to mine, which was putting mask-like faces on solid backgrounds, and painting over all of it. Some people, of course, thought one of us had started copying the devise from the other, but I'd been working with masks since I was eight years old, and he happened to arrive at this structure in his own way, for his own reasons independently of me.
Our stuff was similar only in that overall structure: his stuff had a more "freeform", spontaneous feel to it, and mine was very structured and formal, geometric. We were both a bit perplexed by the accidental similarities of form, but neither of us changed for fear of being unoriginal. We both knew that the idea of a mask-like face on a background panel painted over in acrylic paint, was mere structure, and that the way we each approached it was vastly different.
When I think about the issue of originality I'm never concerned about the possibility of repeating something someone else has done. I'm much more concerned that I don't mindlessly repeat myself: keep cranking out the same drawing over and over. A critic once complained that Vivaldi had written the same concerto 800 times, and in a sense, he had: they're all too similar to each other.
If you are inadvertantly picking up on other people's style, copying their turns of speech and what is particularly unique about them, then, yes, you have a problem and need to concentrate on finding your own "voice". There is a difference between finding your own voice, and doing anything so long as it's original. Originality for originality' sake with the proclaimation: "No one else has ever done it before!" frequently results in pointless and unsatisfying results. "Originality above all" should not be a goal, no.As I already said, I don't think "originality above all" should be a goal either.
I think that artists should try to be original and genuine.You say 'authentic', I say 'genuine', I mean the same thing. Artists can have more than one goal. It's crystal clear to me that you think authenticity should be a goal. You say it should be the goal but give examples where originality is also a goal, so I still have two questions:
Do you think originality should be among an artist's goals? Yes, no, sometimes?
If originality is among an artist's goals, do you think an artist needs to make a conscious effort to achieve that goal? Yes, no, sometimes?
If you don't want to answer, fine. I'm not even arguing about your answers - I'm just trying to figure out what your answers are. You don't need to give any support or explanation - a simple yes, no, or sometimes is all that I want.
To be clear, I am not asking what all of an artist's goals should be or how they should rank in importance or about the difference between an idea and its presentation, or what all makes an artist or piece of art successful.
HRW, it seems you need taghairm, but will the lady of the lake find it :biggrin:
TheStatutoryApe
Aug22-05, 10:13 PM
"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.
To Zooby, yes I realize there's a differance. Thinking about plagiarism brought him to mind though. And thanks for bringing up that book by the way, I'll have to remember that.
Alrildno, de Hory's painting actually go for in the vicinity of twenty thousand dollars a piece from what I found while looking up that link. There are also apparently people who forge Elmyr de Hory forgeries lol. I originally read about him in one of the Cosmic Trigger series by R.A. Wilson. He was discussing the topic of art and what constitutes art, probably another reason why he came to mind.
I forgot earlier to relatea story that came to mind. A good friends brother went to art school. He apparently was quite busy and didn't get around to working on a project that he was supposed to have finished by the next day. So he went out to his car and cleaned out all the trash on the floor of it then brought it in and plastered it all to a canvas. He turned it in as his project the next day. When asked to explain it he said that it was a statement about society being constantly busy and the trash that they fill their lives with due to popular media and commercialization blah blah blah.... he more or less pulled a line of garbage out of his rectum like he pulled the garbage on the canvas out of his car. He apparently received a good mark on the project.
I put something like this on par with Worhals soup can. I don't think it is really deserving of being called "art".
zoobyshoe
Aug23-05, 12:41 PM
If you don't want to answer, fine. I'm not even arguing about your answers - I'm just trying to figure out what your answers are. You don't need to give any support or explanation - a simple yes, no, or sometimes is all that I want.
Phrasing the quetion this way makes it an improper question. The correct response to the question "Should originality be among an artist's goals?" is not one of three, one word choices.
My feelings about originality and artists are clear by now. I have been addressing the best proper questions I can see lurking behind all the improper quetions you have been posing. I don't think you will arrive at a good answer untill you get some insight into the impropriety of your questions; questions that strangely allow for plagiarism to be confused with lack of originality, and that present choices of two or three, one word answers, to issues that require much more than that to adequately address.
I can't answer Yes, No or, Sometimes, and also be giving a correct answer. I have to say it like this: In general, artists don't have to have originality as a goal; it will arise naturally from their simply being authentic to their own aesthetics. Some artists may have to adopt it as a goal if they happen to have an unfortunate proclivity for imitating other artists. Those are special cases, though. Also, all artists should think in terms of being original when it come to the issue of repeating themselves: they should strive to break new ground vis a via what they, themselves, have already done, to avoid stagnation and treading water.
zoobyshoe
Aug23-05, 12:54 PM
"The art forger you mentioned, of course, isn't a plagiarist, he's a forger."
And some of the best forgers should actually be regarded as artists, IMO.
I saw a TV special about an art forger a few years back and it may be the one mentioned by TSA. In any event, he was superb at it.
It seems to me that it has to take a great deal more skill to exactly reproduce a given masterwork than it would to create an original painting working from the comfort of your own style, so I couldn't really understand why the man didn't try becoming an artist in his own right: he could, apparently, have painted anything he wanted in any style from photorealism to abstract. Was he really, really addicted to the thrill of the "con"? Or did he just draw an insurmountable blank when it came to the notion of expressing any personal vision of things? I couldn't understand it.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug23-05, 08:00 PM
I saw a TV special about an art forger a few years back and it may be the one mentioned by TSA. In any event, he was superb at it.
It seems to me that it has to take a great deal more skill to exactly reproduce a given masterwork than it would to create an original painting working from the comfort of your own style, so I couldn't really understand why the man didn't try becoming an artist in his own right: he could, apparently, have painted anything he wanted in any style from photorealism to abstract. Was he really, really addicted to the thrill of the "con"? Or did he just draw an insurmountable blank when it came to the notion of expressing any personal vision of things? I couldn't understand it.
If it is the same forger, Elmyr de Hory, then apparently he had accidentally stumbled into doing fogeries when he sold a copy of a Picasso he had painted and the buyer had believed it was the real thing. He had tried to start painting his own work but found that he couldn't sell it so he went back to painting forgeries. At the end of his career he tried painting his own work again but made little profit. Even a good painter isn't going to be able to fetch the price for their paintings that a Picasso or a Matisse can.
honestrosewater
Aug24-05, 02:50 AM
Phrasing the quetion this way makes it an improper question. The correct response to the question "Should originality be among an artist's goals?" is not one of three, one word choices.
My feelings about originality and artists are clear by now. I have been addressing the best proper questions I can see lurking behind all the improper quetions you have been posing. I don't think you will arrive at a good answer untill you get some insight into the impropriety of your questions; questions that strangely allow for plagiarism to be confused with lack of originality,I was never talking about plagiarism; You took my example to be about plagiarism, but I didn't want to keep getting sidetracked, so I let it go. My example was about two people presenting the same idea in the same way, purely by coincidence.
and that present choices of two or three, one word answers, to issues that require much more than that to adequately address.Okay, I wasn't trying to back you into a corner or anything - I specifically said that I wasn't necessarily asking for an adequate address. I realize that a one-word answer might not provide enough detail about your opinion, but your explanations confused me, so I was trying get to the bottom of things. It doesn't look like I'm going to get much further with that, so I'll just drop it. :smile:
But I still don't think my questions are improper. Whatever your opinion is, I think it must fall under at least one of the answers. For each individual case, either originality is a goal or originality is not a goal. For all cases combined, originality is a goal in either all, some, or none of them. What are the options not covered by 'is or is not' and 'all, some, or none'?
I can't answer Yes, No or, Sometimes, and also be giving a correct answer. I have to say it like this: In general, artists don't have to have originality as a goal; it will arise naturally from their simply being authentic to their own aesthetics. Some artists may have to adopt it as a goal if they happen to have an unfortunate proclivity for imitating other artists. Those are special cases, though. Also, all artists should think in terms of being original when it come to the issue of repeating themselves: they should strive to break new ground vis a via what they, themselves, have already done, to avoid stagnation and treading water.Just to show what I mean, from this last explanation, it seems your answers would be:
Do you think originality should be among an artist's goals? Sometimes.
If originality is among an artist's goals, do you think an artist needs to make a conscious effort to achieve that goal? Sometimes.
I understand how a 'sometimes' answer begs further explanation. I was just trying to get past that first step.
And BTW, it initially seemed like your answer to both quesitons could have been 'no', so I think we've made some progress despite our communication problems.
arildno
Aug24-05, 06:19 AM
But, hrw, wouldn't you say that in as much as an artist is dissatisfied if thinks his work unoriginal, then we could say that it is precisely because it isn't HIS individuality he's managed to express, it is someone else's (i.e, the previous artist)?
That is, he has not lived up to his own standard of authenticity..
honestrosewater
Aug24-05, 09:08 AM
But, hrw, wouldn't you say that in as much as an artist is dissatisfied if thinks his work unoriginal, then we could say that it is precisely because it isn't HIS individuality he's managed to express, it is someone else's (i.e, the previous artist)?
That is, he has not lived up to his own standard of authenticity..I guess that could happen. There are situations where originality and authenticity conflict, but I'm not sure what specifically you're thinking of.
It can happen that two people are just very similar; They have the same beliefs, opinions, tastes, etc. I feel this way about another writer. If my only goal were to be authentic, I might be perfectly content creating work that happened to be very similar to this other writer's, i.e., containing nothing really new, because I know that I'm just being 'true to myself', to who I am at the moment. But I don't write only for myself or only for the moment - I have a wider audience in mind. So I have to think about what would benefit my intended audience, myself included. What good am I doing if I just give them what they already have, if I don't give them anything new? This is where my conflict lies - in being true to myself and still creating something that my audience needs, something that doesn't already exist, something better than what already exists. Being authentic and original are equally important to me - the whole struggle is trying to not sacrifice one for the sake of the other. This is what drives and feeds me, exhausts me at times but ultimately makes me grow. This effort to make real progress is what I was trying to get across before and what I think Hemingway is talking about.
How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has been well written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him.
arildno
Aug24-05, 09:18 AM
I guess that could happen. There are situations where originality and authenticity conflict, but I'm not sure what specifically you're thinking of.
It can happen that two people are just very similar; They have the same beliefs, opinions, tastes, etc. I feel this way about another writer. If my only goal were to be authentic, I might be perfectly content creating work that happened to be very similar to this other writer's, i.e., containing nothing really new, because I know that I'm just being 'true to myself', to who I am at the moment. But I don't write only for myself or only for the moment - I have a wider audience in mind. So I have to think about what would benefit my intended audience, myself included. What good am I doing if I just give them what they already have, if I don't give them anything new? This is where my conflict lies - in being true to myself and still creating something that my audience needs, something that doesn't already exist, something better than what already exists. Being authentic and original are equally important to me - the whole struggle is trying to not sacrifice one for the sake of the other. This is what drives and feeds me and makes me grow.
I guess we're sorting discussing this more because we associate different nuances with our concepts than with very deep disagreement.
What I find is so easily a tendency in the "originality search", is that the end product seems contrived, as if merely designed on purpose distinct from other art works.
While in earlier times, when most art was made in order to please the tastes of the super-rich&powerful (like the Medici's), and hence, slavishly followed in certain conventions with the artist rarely daring to stake out his own path, I now feel that the pendulum has swung too much in the other direction, in that artists seem to fear as if they do not do something shocking, or utterly weird&contrived, then they will simply not be noticed.
This wasn't much of a reply, I guess, rather a hasty jotting of some disconnected thoughts..
honestrosewater
Aug24-05, 10:01 AM
I guess we're sorting discussing this more because we associate different nuances with our concepts than with very deep disagreement.Yeah, I think so too. Asking you guys questions didn't work out so well, so I'm switching to just explaining my opinion.
What I find is so easily a tendency in the "originality search", is that the end product seems contrived, as if merely designed on purpose distinct from other art works.
While in earlier times, when most art was made in order to please the tastes of the super-rich&powerful (like the Medici's), and hence, slavishly followed in certain conventions with the artist rarely daring to stake out his own path, I now feel that the pendulum has swung too much in the other direction, in that artists seem to fear as if they do not do something shocking, or utterly weird&contrived, then they will simply not be noticed.
This wasn't much of a reply, I guess, rather a hasty jotting of some disconnected thoughts..I understand. I don't see the point in doing what hasn't been done. I want to do something that needs to be done. Maybe there's a lesson that has already been taught but that needs to be presented in a way that more people will want to learn it. Maybe there's some new problem that needs to be addressed. I may have more social freedoms, so I can make explicit what others had to imply. Maybe there's a great story out there that people don't want to read because it's presentation is antiquated or not to their taste. Giving old stories a facelift is another possibility. It doesn't need to be absolutely new - just new to its audience.
For example, say I want to write a story about addiction - addiction in general, of any form. Some people might identify strongly with addiction to alcohol or some kind of drug, while others may not identify with this at all. Maybe this other group would identify with an addiction to achievement and recognition, to having to please everyone and be the best. Though they would both be the same basic story, with the same basic message, I would consider them different in the way that matters - they are valuable to and meet the needs of different people. Does that make sense?
I might like to see a new Hamlet with Hamlet as a woman. I don't mean just a superficial change of sex; If Hamlet really were a woman, the story could change in meaningful ways. I don't know exactly what would change, but I've thought a little about it before. Imagine keeping everyone else the same sex. How would Hamlet's relationship with Horatio and Ophelia change if Hamlet were a woman? His relationship with his mother, father, and stepfather? I would like to do this and see how few changes I could get away with while still making the changes worthwhile. Actually, I think I'll resurrect this project.
Oh, wait, I forgot the most important part: How much would you pay to see the newest film adaptation, Hamlet, Princess of Denmark? :wink:
arildno
Aug25-05, 07:26 AM
I want to do something that needs to be done. Maybe there's a lesson that has already been taught but that needs to be presented in a way that more people will want to learn it. Maybe there's some new problem that needs to be addressed. I may have more social freedoms, so I can make explicit what others had to imply. Maybe there's a great story out there that people don't want to read because it's presentation is antiquated or not to their taste. Giving old stories a facelift is another possibility. It doesn't need to be absolutely new - just new to its audience.
Perhaps most of all, it should be a story YOU need to tell, because you identify with the issues there?
For example, say I want to write a story about addiction - addiction in general, of any form. Some people might identify strongly with addiction to alcohol or some kind of drug, while others may not identify with this at all. Maybe this other group would identify with an addiction to achievement and recognition, to having to please everyone and be the best. Though they would both be the same basic story, with the same basic message, I would consider them different in the way that matters - they are valuable to and meet the needs of different people. Does that make sense?
Yes, it does.
I might like to see a new Hamlet with Hamlet as a woman. I don't mean just a superficial change of sex; If Hamlet really were a woman, the story could change in meaningful ways. I don't know exactly what would change, but I've thought a little about it before. Imagine keeping everyone else the same sex. How would Hamlet's relationship with Horatio and Ophelia change if Hamlet were a woman? His relationship with his mother, father, and stepfather? I would like to do this and see how few changes I could get away with while still making the changes worthwhile. Actually, I think I'll resurrect this project.
Oh, wait, I forgot the most important part: How much would you pay to see the newest film adaptation, Hamlet, Princess of Denmark? :wink:
Could be interesting; I enjoyed, for example, Akira Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespeare's plays (like Ran).
Besides, I've always wanted Hamlet to horate someone..:wink:
honestrosewater
Aug25-05, 08:14 AM
Perhaps most of all, it should be a story YOU need to tell, because you identify with the issues there?Absolutely. :approve: Er, the two goals still being equal. ;)
Could be interesting; I enjoyed, for example, Akira Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespeare's plays (like Ran).Oh, I've never heard of him(?). Ah, Ran is Lear with sons, I see. I've been trying to get people to read or watch Shakespeare for years - and I almost always fail! :cry: The biggest complaint is that they don't understand the language - I didn't understand much of it at first either. A close second is that it's not relevant to their modern lives - if only they'd give it a chance! I think I've solved both problems, but it's really difficult to explain - it's a vision ;) Hamlet is crammed full of visual imagery, and I'm going to take full advantage of it. :smile: Now, I swear there was a begging for money thread around here somewhere...
Besides, I've always wanted Hamlet to horate someone..:wink:Haven't we all. :biggrin:
arildno
Aug25-05, 08:28 AM
Oh, I've never heard of him(?). Ah, Ran is Lear with sons, I see. I've been trying to get people to read or watch Shakespeare for years - and I almost always fail! :cry: The biggest complaint is that they don't understand the language - I didn't understand much of it at first either. A close second is that it's not relevant to their modern lives - if only they'd give it a chance! I think I've solved both problems, but it's really difficult to explain - it's a vision ;) Hamlet is crammed full of visual imagery, and I'm going to take full advantage of it. :smile: Now, I swear there was a begging for money thread around here somewhere...
You don't need to try to get me to read Shakespeare; I do so on my own regularly. :smile:
What is so good about WS, he was a cider soaked poacher.
honestrosewater
Aug26-05, 08:28 AM
What is so good about WS, he was a cider soaked poacher. :rofl: Is this a story about him poaching deer or something?
arildno
Aug26-05, 08:30 AM
He shook his spear, threw it and killed a deer?? :confused:
Or:
He loaded his gun, just for fun, shot, and narrowly missed a nun??
(Was she on the way to a nunnery?)
:rofl: Is this a story about him poaching deer or something?
A parliment member, a justice of peace
at home a poor scarecrow, at London an asse;
If lousie is Lucy, as some folk miscalle it,
Then Lucy is lousie, whatever befalle it.
He thinks himself greate,
yet an asse in his state
we allowe by his eares but with asses to mate:
If Lucy is lousie, as some folk miscalle it,
Sing lousie Lucy, whatever befalle it
Yes and his revenge.
arildno
Aug26-05, 08:48 AM
..but with asses to mate:
Eeh? :confused:.. :blushing:
Eeh? :confused:.. :blushing:
He probably wrote that while under the influence, there are many folk lore
tales about his visits to orchards and cider drinking, he was a bad lad.
arildno
Aug26-05, 08:56 AM
he was a bad lad.
He wrote beautiful sonnets, though..
He wrote beautiful sonnets, though..
Yep, quill in one hand and a tankard of cider in tother.
lunarmansion
Dec11-06, 10:59 AM
Art-architecture, music, the fine arts- is a reflection of the spirit and culture of the times. I also cannot understand a great deal of modern art such as "abstract expressionism" , but am reluctant to place a value judgment. The paucity of art in our times says not so much about the artists but rather the fragmented nature of modern day civ. A style does become exhausted for the time-unless, to take the example I have seen in art history with regard to chinese painting, old styles are revived and kept alive for hundreds of years.
What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
and no one notices, how can it have meaning?
The meaning is that the art is adaptable to poor handling. If it retains a pleasing and controversial composition when its upside down that means its a piece of art that works well with any outfit!
It is also a fact that the human eye sees the world upside down until the brain takes the visual stimulus and turns it rightside up. The painting hung upside down is displayed in a manner that is actually truer to our mechanism of perception than when hung rightside up. It also shows versitility to the point of sustaining its function as art in an anti-grav environment.:rolleyes:
grafica
Jan13-08, 01:08 PM
hai
manytime in modern art i dont understand as what it actually means to
hey, if it looks good on skin, its good to me
In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.
Well then, you might confine your viewing of art to Pokemon cartoons and disney fantasies and let the real manly/womanly artists continue their trade with out your viewership eh wot?!
Dadface
Mar10-09, 08:10 AM
I looked at a picture yesterday.
A modern artist is one who throws paint on a canvas,wipes it off with a cloth and sells the cloth...................................anon
Modern art is when you buy a picture to cover a hole in a wall,and then decide the hole looks much better.......................anon
I think modern art is just for suggestible people, the people who can see things in ink blots,
i can look at an ink blot for ages and not see any thing other than an ink blot, others imagine things for the life of me i can see.
SW VandeCarr
Jul30-09, 11:24 PM
I think modern art is just for suggestible people, the people who can see things in ink blots,
i can look at an ink blot for ages and not see any thing other than an ink blot, others imagine things for the life of me i can see.
Art is the stuff that civilizations leave behind which later civilizations notice.
Art is the stuff that civilizations leave behind which later civilizations notice.
That's definitely one of the effects of having a culture that produces art. The art becomes an historic account of their culture.
When you take Art History, that's the main point of many of the lecturers. Learning history through the eyes of a civilization's artists. Sometimes they're artists that the state has hired and sometimes they're artists who are independent. For instance Goya painted the atrocities enacted by the Spanish government upon its citizens during his time. If he was employed by the government he would have either been muzzled into painting pretty pictures of the King/Queen's children or he would have been killed.
Sometimes the artwork of a culture can tell us more about it than any written history will do. This is because written works can be edited and re-written to reflect someone's idea of a better view of the times. Whereas, a sculpture can only be destroyed or disfigured and a painting similarly so..... but this is rare because art commands far more respect than the written word. It was only when a ruler was displaced that their image would be destroyed or replaced with the next. Even during the 2nd world war much of the art work that railed against the Fascists was never destroyed but was stolen, stashed then retrieved by the allies upon the defeat of the aggressors.
SW VandeCarr
Jul31-09, 05:41 PM
That's definitely one of the effects of having a culture that produces art. The art becomes an historic account of their culture.
Yes. Art sends a message about the creator of the art and the world she or he lives in. It can be a subtle message appealing to our emotions, aesthetic sense or to the intellect (or any combination). That's why I wonder about some "modern" art. What's the message in a block of wood with nail in it, or paint thrown on a canvas by the artist or by chimpanzees? I've seen both in art galleries along with other examples that I doubt would attract any attention whatsoever from those who might follow us. It's not that they would think it's bad art or that they'd think we were all crazy. I think they wouldn't notice it at all.
Yes. Art sends a message about the creator of the art and the world she or he lives in. It can be a subtle message appealing to our emotions, aesthetic sense or to the intellect (or any combination). That's why I wonder about some "modern" art. What's the message in a block of wood with nail in it, or paint thrown on a canvas by the artist or by chimpanzees? I've seen both in art galleries along with other examples that I doubt would attract any attention whatsoever from those who might follow us. It's not that they would think it's bad art or that they'd think we were all crazy. I think they wouldn't notice it at all.
These "modern works" are the expressions of artists. If du Champs urinal was found in 3065 AD all it would say about the American immigrated culture of the 1950s would be that we had an integrated waste disposal method. There would be none of the Dadaist philosophy conveyed by his "work of art". It is a statement about the times but the statement is lost with the passage of time and the progress of art itself.
SW VandeCarr
Jul31-09, 07:25 PM
These "modern works" are the expressions of artists. If du Champs urinal was found in 3065 AD all it would say about the American immigrated culture of the 1950s would be that we had an integrated waste disposal method. There would be none of the Dadaist philosophy conveyed by his "work of art". It is a statement about the times but the statement is lost with the passage of time and the progress of art itself.
My examples were in reference to some modern art. I don't categorically deny that much modern art could be of interest to future civilizations. Moreover, art is not restricted to paintings and sculptures. Wherever we have some freedom of design, we can have art. It can be functional. It doesn't have to be decorative in the usual sense. However, by using the word "stuff", I'm not talking about ideas, literature or necessarily the media that conveys those ideas. There are many art forms that aren't things that you hold in your hand or place in your home (music, dance forms, etc). I'm really taking the more narrow definition of art that has been the subject of this thread; that is, "stuff" that future archeologists might find or that is otherwise preserved for future generations. I don't think a future archeologist would take notice of a block of wood with a nail in it.
I don't think a future archeologist would take notice of a block of wood with a nail in it.
Not unless its price tag of $17,500 USD survived the eons stuck to its underbelly.
SW VandeCarr
Jul31-09, 09:25 PM
Not unless its price tag of $17,500 USD survived the eons stuck to its underbelly.
Actually, if I remember correctly, it was a steal at 500 USD.
hello~
i have read just three pages but I am going to go on and reply because i am a bit disturbed...what i find disturbing is how you folks are defining what art is, and it seems that maybe you are not artists yourselves, and you are leaving things (of great import to me) out of your definitions, of what art is, was or can be...what makes good art.
Art is not something that is necessarily outward, it can be created, for the enjoyment of a public, a family, a friend...for fame or monetary gain. But art, is for me a form of self expression, created for enjoyment, or catharsis, or clearing the senses, or clarity of and or conveyance of an idea they cant find the words for...for a variety of reasons, some only known by the artist themselves when they go into the forming of a piece.
Just as music is an art, and dance...fine art may be formed of a pattern worked out or a process followed or it can be spontaneous and free. Following no rules but the makers.
Why is it that everyone is so caught up in what art should be?
How it pleases or does not please the senses? It is the manifestation someones ability, someones way to express something, anything...someones idea about a part of life...And just as some poetry is disturbing, or a manifesto can be insane...Art is a reflection of societal mores. Art is life...it is color or tone upon color and tone...it does not need your judgements to be valid.
Art is like Music, you do not have to adhere to loving all of it, but it is no less valid for your displeasure. It all signifys the artist's state of mind. Even if that state of mind is commercial...made just to please another.
As in music or dance, one may prefer ballet to punk, but punk is what draws another human to feel better about themselves, or life, or the moment or the day.
Along those lines, it does not matter if I like only Durer and you only love Escher, & Kadinski, but to bring us together in a gallery where we might meet face to face, discovering all three.
Art is far more than some people realize, and sometimes it is an elephant painting flowers in a zoo.
m'just sayin
Galteeth
Oct30-09, 09:52 PM
hello~
i have read just three pages but I am going to go on and reply because i am a bit disturbed...what i find disturbing is how you folks are defining what art is, and it seems that maybe you are not artists yourselves, and you are leaving things (of great import to me) out of your definitions, of what art is, was or can be...what makes good art.
Art is not something that is necessarily outward, it can be created, for the enjoyment of a public, a family, a friend...for fame or monetary gain. But art, is for me a form of self expression, created for enjoyment, or catharsis, or clearing the senses, or clarity of and or conveyance of an idea they cant find the words for...for a variety of reasons, some only known by the artist themselves when they go into the forming of a piece.
Just as music is an art, and dance...fine art may be formed of a pattern worked out or a process followed or it can be spontaneous and free. Following no rules but the makers.
Why is it that everyone is so caught up in what art should be?
How it pleases or does not please the senses? It is the manifestation someones ability, someones way to express something, anything...someones idea about a part of life...And just as some poetry is disturbing, or a manifesto can be insane...Art is a reflection of societal mores. Art is life...it is color or tone upon color and tone...it does not need your judgements to be valid.
Art is like Music, you do not have to adhere to loving all of it, but it is no less valid for your displeasure. It all signifys the artist's state of mind. Even if that state of mind is commercial...made just to please another.
As in music or dance, one may prefer ballet to punk, but punk is what draws another human to feel better about themselves, or life, or the moment or the day.
Along those lines, it does not matter if I like only Durer and you only love Escher, & Kadinski, but to bring us together in a gallery where we might meet face to face, discovering all three.
Art is far more than some people realize, and sometimes it is an elephant painting flowers in a zoo.
m'just sayin
I would basically agree with this. I would say art is the production of something that has a metaphysical value beyond solely that of the information contained. In other words, it is a creation whose sum is greater then the addition of its components, in the form of different elements of language combining to create a communication that none of the individual lingual elements (geometric, aesthetic, words, musical, linear story, character, etc) are capable of expressing in isolation.
Stop right here. There is no such limit. Each successive generation is dealt a new set of tastes and ideas with which to work, that can't possibly be exhausted before the next generation arrives,
The notion that everything there was to do had already been done that started to creep into people's thinking around 1900, was a kind of fad idea in and of itself, but which took hold on people such that it was spread around like a virus, and people rather dull wittedly believed it. It was never true.
Excellant point! I am thinking...(having read now to the page this post is on, six, i believe), that low-brow art and the semi-undiscovered works of those with mental health issues, are probably the wave of the future. Since everyday more and more folks are "diagnosed".
No one can predict where art will progress to, and that is part of the beauty...arts evolution follows mans evolution and his processes, construction or deconstruction, appealing or repulsive. Disturbing, awe inspiring, precious, genius...art is what we do to keep time, with the ways of the world, as artists. And while I may have what sometimes feels like a great deal of jealousy, or envy, or disgust that some who produce what they produce, which seems of a low caliber, meet with more fame or fortune. I have to give them credit for producing something that provoked, or enlightened, or destroyed a false idea, that mimicked or pleased or made smile or gasp...I have to give them, that they put something out there...which i as an artist, seem to have a hard time doing.
I have my talent, and my ability to produce my sort of art and it comes with some ease, and provides me great pleasure. But who is it affecting, who is it welcoming in, moving, or sending away reeling? If kept to myself....Art is meant to be shared, in order to make the world more somehow aligned...I am grateful to that those who are producing art.
Art of pretty much ANY kind.
If someone deigns to get volumes from a canvas painted just plain white tho~ i might be inclined to smirk about such pretentions...
heehee
;~})
Oh and i adhere to what Hemmingway said in his speech~ it is very hard to reach sometimes, for the unexplored, undiscovered and unexpected, when what you have in you, sometimes, is just right here, and right now, & sometimes just average.
Lowbrow is exciting and new.
http://www.lowbrowartworld.com/profile01.html
and (Outsider art)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistry_of_the_Mentally_Ill
Just another thing:
Most genuine artists wouldn't agree with any of the art critics' deep analyses of their work.
To these artists, making their painting in that particular way just "felt right" to them.
This doesn't mean that interesting parallells and evolutions in the history cannot legitimately be pointed out by the art critic, but it doesn't really have a lot to do with the creative imagination of the true artist.
This is true for me, that i do my art because i sense something forming before me, and I may just rub a lightly painted cloth across a surface (sometimes canvas) and there before me my imagination sets to interpreting what is in the pale smatterings. My imagination comes to the fore and gives light to whatever I see before me. I am not someone who knows what i will paint. The painting or piece comes to life before me. Part of this creative process seems to be letting go, allowing the art to take me on a journey.
Someone may interpret my art, and they may be completely right on, or be just so off base, and that isnt too important, I am not completely sure what my own art means to me most of the time. It just produced itself thru my hands...into existance. I was used by the creative flux...in a sense, to my thinking... I am not analysing myself...i am just creating art, i am not making a statement, i see things and I color them in. It pleases me to add color and depth to what i see...but then I see interesting detailed fairy tale images in carpeting and bathroom tiles.
Lucky i guess...
This "friend" in myspace~ they are more into making a statement...it seems.
I love the art~ despite its quietly violent nature.
http://www.myspace.com/logyu
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.